I've seen it mentioned many times here at CalGuns that any license to carry per PC 12050 (aka CCW) is a valid exemption to PC 12031 (loaded state of a firearm) and PC 626.9 (Gun Free School Zones)

It's even been brought up that achieving Shall Issue CCW in CA will provide open carrier advocates a path to lawful Loaded Open Carry (LOC) if they have a CCW since the issueing authority would no longer be able to arbitrarily yank the CCW license.

It has come to my attention that AB1363 chaptered 10/11/2009 changes this.

Original text for 12031(b)(6)
The carrying of pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable
of being concealed upon the person by persons who are
authorized to carry those weapons pursuant to Article 3
(commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4.

New text:
The carrying of handguns by persons as authorized pursuant to
Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of
Part 4.

Therefore a CCW is no longer an exemption to 12031.

So, does this mean that if a CCW holder is carrying concealed and loaded and for whatever reason accidently exposes hasn't he just violated 12031? i.e. momentary, unintentional Loaded Open Carry = violation of 12031

bigcalidave

01-13-2010, 3:26 PM

I don't see why you think that makes a CCW no longer an exemption. From reading the bill text, I honestly don't get the purpose of the changes. They do have to make it appear like they are working though, so maybe this was just a way to pass the time.

This version shows the changes.
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20090AB136399INT

A lot of this wording change is happening.

(6) The carrying of pistols, revolvers, or other firearms
capable of being concealed upon the person handguns
by persons who are as authorized
to carry those weapons pursuant to Article 3

Underlined parts are deleted, italics are added.

Why would they need to simplify it to "handguns" ??

CSDGuy

01-13-2010, 3:32 PM

I've seen it mentioned many times here at CalGuns that any license to carry per PC 12050 (aka CCW) is a valid exemption to PC 12031 (loaded state of a firearm) and PC 626.9 (Gun Free School Zones)

It's even been brought up that achieving Shall Issue CCW in CA will provide open carrier advocates a path to lawful Loaded Open Carry (LOC) if they have a CCW since the issueing authority would no longer be able to arbitrarily yank the CCW license.

It has come to my attention that AB1363 chaptered 10/11/2009 changes this.

Original text for 12031(b)(6)
The carrying of pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable
of being concealed upon the person by persons who are
authorized to carry those weapons pursuant to Article 3
(commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4.

New text:
The carrying of handguns by persons as authorized pursuant to
Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of
Part 4.

Therefore a CCW is no longer an exemption to 12031.

So, does this mean that if a CCW holder is carrying concealed and loaded and for whatever reason accidently exposes hasn't he just violated 12031? i.e. momentary, unintentional Loaded Open Carry = violation of 12031
I don't see any actual change in the law other than a cleanup of that section. In effect, all they did was change "pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person" with "handguns" and cleaned up the rest of it to make it read better. You have a handgun? You have a CCW (per 12050)? You're still not in violation of 12031, as amended.

Let me reword part of it for you...

Original text for 12031(b)(6)
The carrying of handguns by persons who are
authorized to carry those weapons pursuant to Article 3
(commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4.

New text:
The carrying of handguns by persons as authorized pursuant to
Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of
Part 4.

Therefore a CCW is no longer an exemption to 12031.

So, does this mean that if a CCW holder is carrying concealed and loaded and for whatever reason accidently exposes hasn't he just violated 12031? i.e. momentary, unintentional Loaded Open Carry = violation of 12031

I made ONE change... and the one below it shows the full change. You have a CCW? You're still not in violation of 12031 as you'd be in violation of 12031 the instant you stepped out into public property regardless of whether or not you open carried or not. 12031 MUST consider the possibility that your license under 12050 is one specifically for open, loaded carry.

bigcalidave

01-13-2010, 3:42 PM

Oooh I see... Check out the analysis of the bill.
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/analysis.html?aid=32343

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"Section 12050 of the California Penal Code allows the
sheriff of the county or a chief of police to issue a
concealed weapons permit (also known as a CCW permit) to
applicants they deem acceptable according to prescriptions
by law. If approved, the applicant can carry a concealed
and loaded gun. This section also allows both sheriff's
and police chiefs in a county with a population of less
than 200,000 to allow an applicant to carry a loaded and
exposed weapon, but only in that county with a population
of less than 200,000.

"Some of these people that have been authorized to carry a
loaded and exposed weapon have been going to other
counties, with a population of over 200,000, with the
loaded and exposed weapon, which is a violation of their
CCW authorization. Currently in law, Section 12031 of the
California Penal Code, which is the law making it illegal
to carry a loaded firearm in public, provides for an
exception to an individual who has a CCW permit. However,
the exception does not appropriately address the two
different CCW authorizations. By making a simple language
change to the exception, Section 12031 will properly
address the two different CCW authorizations and provide a
penalty for individuals who abuse their CCW privileges."

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Association of
Firearms Retailers states that, "?after carefully reviewing
the bill and the overall discussion this year in the
Legislature on the Concealed Carry Permits, we believe this
is a piecemeal approach to this issue and that a
comprehensive review of the CCW process is needed. We have
supported such efforts in the Legislature over the years,
including this year's AB 357 which was defeated in the
policy committee. We argued that persons who are not
lawfully prohibited from possessing firearms should be able
to obtain a CCW. It should be their right and not
determined by an issuing agency.

"We do not see a need for t his bill. It has been argued
that under current law there is no penalty for violating
the statutes. It seems clear that is not the case since
the issuing authority has the ability to withdraw the
permit from the recipient for any violation of the
provisions of the permit.

"We believe this bill could lead to further limitations in
those permits. We would like to see the Legislature and the sponsor that opposes CCE reform to work with all the
parties to define a comprehensive CCW process that provides
equal protection to all citizens and does not discriminate
based on the jurisdiction in which the individual resides.
The sponsor, the LA Sheriffs Office, consistently sponsors
legislation in the area to impose its local position on all
jurisdictions. We note on AB 962, the ammunition
registration bill, they want to dictate how other
jurisdictions manage their sales and this bill related to
CCW seems to be attempting to exercise the same control
over CCW permits. We see this as unnecessary bill and a
dangerous attempt to begin the process of limiting lawfully
issued permits to carry concealed (CCW) in the counties or
cities in which they were issued."

Prior to the change, any one of the 4 licenses was an exemption to 12031
Now, if your firearm is loaded & exposed and your license is for CCW, then you are not exempt from 12031 and subject to prosecution.

At least thats my spin on it....

bigcalidave

01-13-2010, 5:03 PM

Yep, that was a ***** *** move santa!

sfpcservice

01-13-2010, 6:44 PM

Could it be that this was a silent attack as a result of UOC? Even though it doesn't really affect UOC, it seems to be a first stab at OC in general.

hoffmang

01-13-2010, 7:06 PM

The only point of the changes were to limit the OC carry permit in a way it was already limited. Read the law closely - OC carry permits were already limited to the county they were issued in. Full 12050 licenses are still full exemptions.

-Gene

mej16489

01-14-2010, 9:43 AM

The only point of the changes were to limit the OC carry permit in a way it was already limited.

Read the law closely - OC carry permits were already limited to the county they were issued in.

This I understand, I agree it was already limited, but its more clear now.

Full 12050 licenses are still full exemptions.

-Gene

This I don't understand, what's a "full" license?

I'm presuming you don't think there is any significance in the text change from "who are authorized" to "as authorized"?

MudCamper

01-14-2010, 10:07 AM

The only point of the changes were to limit the OC carry permit in a way it was already limited. Read the law closely - OC carry permits were already limited to the county they were issued in. Full 12050 licenses are still full exemptions.

Well it would appear that the new language prevents LOC with a CCW permit, while the old language did not.

Original text for 12031(b)(6)

The carrying of pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person by persons who are authorized to carry those weapons pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4.

New text:

The carrying of handguns by persons as authorized pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of Part 4.

The new language, "as authorized" seem to me to mean, if you are authorized to carry concealed and you are not concealing, you are not exempt from 12031.

This is extremely important to clarify, because if our planned path to LOC was via shall-issue CCW, we've now lost LOC.

sfpcservice

01-14-2010, 10:07 AM

Does anyone know if either the Open Carry license or the temporary ccw have ever been issued in this state?

bigstick61

01-14-2010, 10:11 AM

It would also seem now that CA legal SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs have been written out of the law by the language changing it to just handguns, at least that's how it looks to me. I hate how confusing our gun laws can be.

N6ATF

01-14-2010, 10:15 AM

The only point of the changes were to limit the OC carry permit in a way it was already limited. Read the law closely - OC carry permits were already limited to the county they were issued in. Full 12050 licenses are still full exemptions.

-Gene

OK, that was what the bill sponsors generally said, but the exception text for concealed permit holders was also changed - a change in a statute's text implies a change in law.

It would also seem now that CA legal SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs have been written out of the law by the language changing it to just handguns, at least that's how it looks to me. I hate how confusing our gun laws can be.

I agree, though I must admit, I glossed over that with a 'doesn't effect me' attitude. I didn't think I'd ever fall into that trap :(

MudCamper

01-14-2010, 2:19 PM

It would also seem now that CA legal SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs have been written out of the law by the language changing it to just handguns, at least that's how it looks to me.

But isn't that is a win for us.

Sinixstar

01-14-2010, 2:53 PM

It would also seem now that CA legal SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs have been written out of the law by the language changing it to just handguns, at least that's how it looks to me. I hate how confusing our gun laws can be.

If I believed in conspiracies - i would say that's intentional.
The reason being, is by making the laws confusing and in some cases vague - an argument can be made as to their meaning.

Something like this for example - on the surface seems like just cleaning up the language. Reality is - it COULD be an attempt to back-door legislation. With this change, the argument could be made against some poor schmuck in court that he's breaking the law. If the state can convince a judge based on the new language that the CCW does NOT exempt him in terms of OC - then guess what - the law just changed via the courts, not the legislature.

luckily - i don't believe in conspiracies :cool:

mej16489

01-14-2010, 3:51 PM

But isn't that is a win for us.

No, now you cannot carry loaded a concealable weapon which is not a handgun.

In theory someone who is in executive protection might conceivably had some form of concealable weapon like an 8" AK with folding stock on their CCW License. They are now no longer exempt from 12031 and are carrying legally concealed, but illegally loaded firearm.

hoffmang

01-14-2010, 4:14 PM

This I don't understand, what's a "full" license?

In my admittedly imprecise terms, I meant that a limited licenses was a license to carry loaded and exposed issued in a county of less than 200,000 while the "full" license is the not so restricted license.

I'm going to look more closely at this as Mike may have a point.

-Gene

MudCamper

01-14-2010, 5:17 PM

No, now you cannot carry loaded a concealable weapon which is not a handgun.

Right. I had some double negative confusion going on in my head.

wildhawker

01-14-2010, 5:21 PM

After 2 passes, I'm thinking Mike's right on this.

ke6guj

01-14-2010, 6:28 PM

It would also seem now that CA legal SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs have been written out of the law by the language changing it to just handguns, at least that's how it looks to me. I hate how confusing our gun laws can be.I don't read it that way, it looks like they just swapped terms to "handgun" to make the code shorter.

No, now you cannot carry loaded a concealable weapon which is not a handgun.

In theory someone who is in executive protection might conceivably had some form of concealable weapon like an 8" AK with folding stock on their CCW License. They are now no longer exempt from 12031 and are carrying legally concealed, but illegally loaded firearm.

Unless 12001 changed also, "handgun" includes AOW, SBS, and SBR.

12001. (a)(1) As used in this title, the terms "pistol," "revolver," and "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" shall apply to and include any device designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled a projectile by the force of any explosion, or other form of combustion, and that has a barrel less than 16 inches in length. These terms also include any device that has a barrel 16 inches or more in length which is designed to be interchanged with a barrel less than 16 inches in length.
(2) As used in this title, the term "handgun" means any "pistol," "revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person."

(f) Nothing shall prevent a device defined as a "handgun," "pistol," "revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the person" from also being found to be a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle, as defined in Section 12020.

CSDGuy

01-14-2010, 6:50 PM

I re-read the "old" and "new" versions of the "authorized" portion... I can see how the "old" version could result in someone with a Loaded/Exposed license under 12050 being charged with a violation of 12031 if the weapon was carried outside the "home" county. The reason being that if you're only authorized to carry Loaded/Exposed in that one county, you're therefore NOT authorized to carry a loaded weapon in another county...

I think it could still be read much like the "old" stuff, in that concealed or not, a CCW holder is still a licensed CCW holder.

mej16489

01-15-2010, 12:44 PM

I don't read it that way, it looks like they just swapped terms to "handgun" to make the code shorter.

Unless 12001 changed also, "handgun" includes AOW, SBS, and SBR.

Ahhh, I was completely unaware of that definition, thank you for posting it!